SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

long term capital gains”. Regarding the claim of deduction under Section 54, the Ld. CIT(A) stated that the claim has to be substantiated by the assessee by bringing on record the evidence of construction of residential house which has not been done despite sufficient opportunity being granted to the assessee. 5. As per record, the assessee has not filed

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

long-term capital gain on sale of shops, concluding that the activity formed part of business, and determined income from that project as business profit without indexation. After reworking income head-wise, disallowing deductions on non-member and bank interest, and reclassifying project income, the AO computed taxable income at Rs.91,14,190/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard.

long-term capital gain on sale of shops, concluding that the activity formed part of business, and determined income from that project as business profit without indexation. After reworking income head-wise, disallowing deductions on non-member and bank interest, and reclassifying project income, the AO computed taxable income at Rs.91,14,190/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

PARAS AND SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY LEGAL HEIR OF KANHAIYA LAL,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

terms of L.A. Act 1894 results in payment of additional compensation. 32. The issue to be decided before us - what is the meaning of the words "enhanced compensation/consideration" in Section 45(5)(b) of the A.Y.2007-08 10 1961 Act? Will it cover "interest"? These questions also bring in the concept of the year of taxability. 33. It is to answer

BAHADUR SINGH ,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Long Term Capital Gain. 6. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Feeling aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AR has also submitted that the addition in the partner's capita! account of Rs. 50 lacs should be considered as explained under the unaccounted sales transactions of Rs. 42.80 lacs in the impounded documents and other discrepancies of Rs. 7.2 lacs found during the course

M/S UFV INDIA GLOBAL EDUCATION (SOCIETY),CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 516/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Ufv India Global Vs. The Dcit Exemption, Circle-1, Education, बनाम Chandigarh Ggd Sanatan Dharma College, Ector 32-C, Chandigarh (U.T.) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcu7691M अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024

long term capital gain and, thereafter, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 37 lacs and the paid the tax and interest. 21. It was held by the Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT as per finding given in para 10 as under:- "Therefore, from the facts of the present case, it is clear that the assessee suo moto surrendered

THE SHAHABAD COOP. SUGAR MILLS,SHAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KURUKSHETRA

Bench: Us In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 11/03/2018 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order, Before This Tribunal In Form No. 36 Has Interalia Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Long Term Capital Gains have not arisen in a given year, funds that stand invested in shares are in relation to income that does not form part of the total income. Even Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) refers to the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income. For the above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is premature in nature. ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 14 5.5 Ground of Appeal No. 7 is consequential in nature. 5.6 Ground of Appeal No. 8 has not been argued by the AR during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. In the result

BALWANT SINGH DHINDSA, ADV. SO KARTAR SINGH, #185 STREET NO. 11, PUNIA COLONY, SANGRUR, PUNJAB,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD SANGRUR, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

gain in ROI [belated] has been considered\nsubject to verification by ld. AO only as explained sum.\nThe assessee is directed to file relevant submission\nbefore ld. AO for proper verification.\n3.11\nWith\nregard to remaining\ndeposit\nof\nRs.18,07,500/- it was claimed that assessee had received\ncash of Rs.4.50 lakh as agriculture lease income.\nFurther, sum of Rs.4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 which is premature in nature.\n5.5 Ground of Appeal No. 7 is consequential in nature.\n5.6 Ground of Appeal No. 8 has not been argued by the AR during the course of\nappellate proceedings.\n6. In the result the appeal is allowed on factual grounds.”\n11. Before

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

long to be accepted when, on the other hand, assessee did not furnish any information till that date. On 14.9.2009, vide letter No. 1376, again reminder of earlier questionnaire was issued. Followed by letter calling for requirements pertaining to cases where Letters issued u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961 were received unserved and request was also made

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

long to be accepted when, on the other hand, assessee did not furnish any information till that date. On 14.9.2009, vide letter No. 1376, again reminder of earlier questionnaire was issued. Followed by letter calling for requirements pertaining to cases where Letters issued u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961 were received unserved and request was also made